I agree with you: I don't think the SAT or the USC tournament are going to keep a lot of GA teams from going to your tournament. It wouldn't surprise me to see y'all get over 20 teams at Central. Also, I don't believe Brookwood is going to be able to make it up to Michigan after all, but I will let Mr. Barry post a definitive answer on that. As for Chattahoochee's attendance, I would be a bit surprised if we didn't have enough kids for 2 teams. Heck we may even try to bring 3 if some of the sophomores and/or freshmen want to go. I would say 1 team is a guarantee for the Hooch with 2 teams likely and 3 a possibility. I will certainly email you as soon as plans become firm.

Andy,

Changing the date would probably not work too well at this point, other than logistically speaking, because 11/7 is Vandy, 11/14 is Clemson, 11/21 is Brookwood, and 12/12 is Chattahoochee. Quite a few GA teams will go to most (or all) of those 4 tournaments. That only leaves 12/5 as an open date for many GA teams, so I think Central picked the right weekend to host, for what it's worth.

In (somewhat) continuation of what Ms. Hirsch wrote on the UGA Classic City thread, the top teams (at least those in 5A - I don't know enough about the other classifications) look to be quite strong again this year. Even though all of the top 4-5 teams were without 1-2 of their top players, I thought that they all played well enough that any of them could have finished higher than they did. I was pleased by my team's performance all day, finally winning matches against Brookwood and Walton and putting up a good fight for 15 questions against Alpharetta. Speaking of Alpharetta, I was very impressed with their team's knowledge and consistency - lots of good buzzes with very few mistakes. I don't know who the front-runner(s) is (are) for the State Championship yet, but I do know that there are quite a few teams that will have a say in the outcome. It would definitely have been an even more interesting tournament if Centennial and a couple other 5A teams could have made the trip to Athens, but the ACT and All-State really took their toll on several teams so I understand the absences.

Thanks for the compliments, Mr. Rountree. I liked the fact that we got to play most of the top teams at this tournament. I know Alpharetta played Central, Brookwood, and Chattahoochee; I think Chattahoochee played Brookwood, Walton, and us. Though we didn't get to play Walton, I was really impressed by the stats Abubakar put up- he just keeps improving.

You are welcome, William. Yes, Chattahoochee played Brookwood in the prelims, Walton in the playoffs, and y'all in the Championship at UGA. We didn't get to play Central Gwinnett, but I am sure that will happen soon enough.

I am looking forward to y'all's tournament tomorrow. Looks like the field will make for quite a strong JV competition.

Speaking of competitions, we are in the beginning of such a busy month and a half of quizbowl: last weekend was UGA, this weekend is Alpharetta and ACF Fall, next weekend is Vandy, the weekend after that is Clemson, then Brookwood, then off for Thanksgiving Break, and in December we have Michigan and Central Gwinnett the first weekend, then the next weekend is the CATT V here at CHS. I am glad there are so many "local" competitions. We are really excited about getting to play at so many good tournaments, against so many good teams, on so many good questions. It should be fun!

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:I liked the fact that we got to play most of the top teams at this tournament.

I think this is one thing that many southern high school tournaments could work on in general. I remember being somewhat upset that it often seemed like our goal in tournaments was to simply play for points (avoid negs, wait until you're sure, etc) against rural or inexperienced teams in preparation of the one or two games at the end of a single elimination playoff in which we would play another team that we came to the tournament to play (a dorman, a brookwood, a walton, among others). Spending 6-7 games beating up on teams that attend maybe 3 tournaments a year is also not a good way to prep for an intense match against other powerful teams, nor is it very fun for the team being beaten. And I realize that coming from Chattahoochee my view on this matter is skewed, but I don't see why any team, whether from the top or the middle, or the bottom even, would object to playing competition of similar skill level.

Obviously for the really big tournaments that bring out 60-100 teams, like Dorman's or Brookwood's, it's somewhat unpractical to do it any other way, but there were a score of smaller tournaments that could've benefited from taking small measures like splitting up brackets into comparably skilled teams half-way through the day, but that often did no such thing. I think bringing more teams to tournaments in the south, from both the upper and lower skill levels, could be accomplished by taking measures to ensure that teams, as much as is conceivable, play other teams of similar skill levels. Even the larger tournaments, with 40+ teams, could do something small by using single elim up until you have 8 teams left, and then having two divisions of RR and crossing it for the finals, which would only use one more packet anyway.

Part of this whole problem is an obsession with single elimination. Single elimination isn't that bad, by which I mean there are far worse things that could be wrong with a tournament, but at the same time I think many coaches, sponsors, and other TD's in the south have some obsession with using it when there are reasonable alternatives that use about the same amount of packets, and that allow coaches used to leaving at lunch the same opportunity as before.

gwaustin4 wrote:I think this is one thing that many southern high school tournaments could work on in general. I remember being somewhat upset that it often seemed like our goal in tournaments was to simply play for points (avoid negs, wait until you're sure, etc) against rural or inexperienced teams in preparation of the one or two games at the end of a single elimination playoff in which we would play another team that we came to the tournament to play (a dorman, a brookwood, a walton, among others). Spending 6-7 games beating up on teams that attend maybe 3 tournaments a year is also not a good way to prep for an intense match against other powerful teams, nor is it very fun for the team being beaten. And I realize that coming from Chattahoochee my view on this matter is skewed, but I don't see why any team, whether from the top or the middle, or the bottom even, would object to playing competition of similar skill level.

Obviously for the really big tournaments that bring out 60-100 teams, like Dorman's or Brookwood's, it's somewhat unpractical to do it any other way, but there were a score of smaller tournaments that could've benefited from taking small measures like splitting up brackets into comparably skilled teams half-way through the day, but that often did no such thing. I think bringing more teams to tournaments in the south, from both the upper and lower skill levels, could be accomplished by taking measures to ensure that teams, as much as is conceivable, play other teams of similar skill levels. Even the larger tournaments, with 40+ teams, could do something small by using single elim up until you have 8 teams left, and then having two divisions of RR and crossing it for the finals, which would only use one more packet anyway.

Part of this whole problem is an obsession with single elimination. Single elimination isn't that bad, by which I mean there are far worse things that could be wrong with a tournament, but at the same time I think many coaches, sponsors, and other TD's in the south have some obsession with using it when there are reasonable alternatives that use about the same amount of packets, and that allow coaches used to leaving at lunch the same opportunity as before.

I'm not so sure I can agree with brackets based on skill level. An example of this would have been the tournament at Kennesaw State early in the year where after 5-ish rounds of RR play the teams were split into 4 divisions of 5 teams each to play RR playoff matches. This allowed for more rounds overall but took away the competitiveness for our team which was stuck in the second bracket after 1-2 disappointing preliminary matches. I see where breaking down the fields to about 8 and then having a RR between each team is more efficient, but I wouldn't agree with strict bracketing towards the end of a tournament.

Andrew's a Freshman wrote:I'm not so sure I can agree with brackets based on skill level. An example of this would have been the tournament at Kennesaw State early in the year where after 5-ish rounds of RR play the teams were split into 4 divisions of 5 teams each to play RR playoff matches. This allowed for more rounds overall but took away the competitiveness for our team which was stuck in the second bracket after 1-2 disappointing preliminary matches. I see where breaking down the fields to about 8 and then having a RR between each team is more efficient, but I wouldn't agree with strict bracketing towards the end of a tournament.

So based on one bad tournament, most other good tournaments (including one HS national) have been doing it wrong? Am I missing something here?

gwaustin4 wrote:I think this is one thing that many southern high school tournaments could work on in general. I remember being somewhat upset that it often seemed like our goal in tournaments was to simply play for points (avoid negs, wait until you're sure, etc) against rural or inexperienced teams in preparation of the one or two games at the end of a single elimination playoff in which we would play another team that we came to the tournament to play (a dorman, a brookwood, a walton, among others). Spending 6-7 games beating up on teams that attend maybe 3 tournaments a year is also not a good way to prep for an intense match against other powerful teams, nor is it very fun for the team being beaten. And I realize that coming from Chattahoochee my view on this matter is skewed, but I don't see why any team, whether from the top or the middle, or the bottom even, would object to playing competition of similar skill level.

Obviously for the really big tournaments that bring out 60-100 teams, like Dorman's or Brookwood's, it's somewhat unpractical to do it any other way, but there were a score of smaller tournaments that could've benefited from taking small measures like splitting up brackets into comparably skilled teams half-way through the day, but that often did no such thing. I think bringing more teams to tournaments in the south, from both the upper and lower skill levels, could be accomplished by taking measures to ensure that teams, as much as is conceivable, play other teams of similar skill levels. Even the larger tournaments, with 40+ teams, could do something small by using single elim up until you have 8 teams left, and then having two divisions of RR and crossing it for the finals, which would only use one more packet anyway.

Part of this whole problem is an obsession with single elimination. Single elimination isn't that bad, by which I mean there are far worse things that could be wrong with a tournament, but at the same time I think many coaches, sponsors, and other TD's in the south have some obsession with using it when there are reasonable alternatives that use about the same amount of packets, and that allow coaches used to leaving at lunch the same opportunity as before.

I'm not so sure I can agree with brackets based on skill level. An example of this would have been the tournament at Kennesaw State early in the year where after 5-ish rounds of RR play the teams were split into 4 divisions of 5 teams each to play RR playoff matches. This allowed for more rounds overall but took away the competitiveness for our team which was stuck in the second bracket after 1-2 disappointing preliminary matches. I see where breaking down the fields to about 8 and then having a RR between each team is more efficient, but I wouldn't agree with strict bracketing towards the end of a tournament.

There are a few things wrong with your argument, as I see it. First, don't you think that if you had "1-2 disappointing rounds" in the prelims, your team deserved to be in the second bracket? I guess that's a major difference between rebracketing and single-elim: with rebracketing, every match counts, while with single-elim, you could potentially lose all your prelim games and still win the tournament. And how does rebracketing "[take] away competitiveness?" Rather than playing a team that's much worse or much better than yours (i.e. 1v64 seed matches in single-elim), you play against teams that are around your team's level. That seems more competitive, not less. And, in the playoffs, everyone gets to play for an actual finishing spot, rather than T9 or T17. At Kennesaw, your team could have, in winning all playoff matches, finished 6th. Wouldn't that have been quite an accomplishment, given the field?

There are more than two ways to run a tournament, and any method is going to have some flaws. If you have heterogeneous pools followed by homogeneous pools, it generally works well but not perfectly. If your original pools are a little bit off, then you don't get the right teams in your top pool at the end. Also, as has been said, one or two particularly good or particularly bad matches in the morning can stick you in an afternoon pool you don't belong in, meaning that instead of playing teams at your level like is supposed to happen, you end up playing teams that are not. Just because something is better than single elimination does not mean that it is above criticism.

Shcool wrote:Also, as has been said, one or two particularly good or particularly bad matches in the morning can stick you in an afternoon pool you don't belong in, meaning that instead of playing teams at your level like is supposed to happen, you end up playing teams that are not.

Right, but no tournament format is going to be able to judge the inherent ability of your team; the only data we have to (and should) go off of is the matches you play at the tournament. The accuracy of your tournament is only as accurate as the match results. The final rankings of the tournament reflect how well the teams played at that tournament, so yes, if you play poorly, you will finish lower than you were "supposed to." That doesn't seem to be a condemnation of the format, though.

If you have heterogeneous pools followed by homogeneous pools, it generally works well but not perfectly. If your original pools are a little bit off, then you don't get the right teams in your top pool at the end.

Well, part of that is tournament directors determining a large enough playoff bracket size to let in as many teams as feasible.

Shcool wrote:Also, as has been said, one or two particularly good or particularly bad matches in the morning can stick you in an afternoon pool you don't belong in, meaning that instead of playing teams at your level like is supposed to happen, you end up playing teams that are not.

Right, but no tournament format is going to be able to judge the inherent ability of your team; the only data we have to (and should) go off of is the matches you play at the tournament. The accuracy of your tournament is only as accurate as the match results. The final rankings of the tournament reflect how well the teams played at that tournament, so yes, if you play poorly, you will finish lower than you were "supposed to." That doesn't seem to be a condemnation of the format, though.

And in the end, tournaments should measure how well you play the game of quizbowl, in all its aspects. We shouldn't make gamesmanship a disproportionate part of the game, but there's a reason we use buzzers instead of worksheets.

dtaylor4 wrote:So based on one bad tournament, most other good tournaments (including one HS national) have been doing it wrong? Am I missing something here?

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:There are a few things wrong with your argument, as I see it. First, don't you think that if you had "1-2 disappointing rounds" in the prelims, your team deserved to be in the second bracket? I guess that's a major difference between rebracketing and single-elim: with rebracketing, every match counts, while with single-elim, you could potentially lose all your prelim games and still win the tournament. And how does rebracketing "[take] away competitiveness?" Rather than playing a team that's much worse or much better than yours (i.e. 1v64 seed matches in single-elim), you play against teams that are around your team's level. That seems more competitive, not less. And, in the playoffs, everyone gets to play for an actual finishing spot, rather than T9 or T17. At Kennesaw, your team could have, in winning all playoff matches, finished 6th. Wouldn't that have been quite an accomplishment, given the field?

The fact that the afternoon standing cannot be changed after the early rounds are over was the idea I was trying to express. If you are clearly the best team in a certain division, which I can't say we were at the Kennesaw tournament and will now separate myself from that example, then you cannot actually measure yourself against the teams around you. If you go undefeated in a bracketed playoff, there is a certain lack of accomplishment in finishing a good way away from 1st place. A single elimination allows for each team to finish with a loss to a team that ends its day with a higher placement. Say half of your team shows up after the first match because their car got lost (which may not happen to any other teams but ours, I can't say) and you lose this match. Now, it's later in the tournament and you're in a bracket with 4 teams that you are clearly better than. This is where the competitiveness is lost, as I see it.

Take the BCS, for perhaps a better example:
Texas did not make the championship game though they did beat Oklahoma during the regular season. This is the same idea of two 4-1 teams being places in different brackets though perhaps the team in the lower bracket beat the one placed in higher bracket based on point totals. This is not to say that point totals are not a decent gauge of performance, but, though the lower placed team may be better than the high placed team, they are stuck in a bracket in which they cannot prove that. Texas may have beaten Florida in the BCS championship, but we'll never know.

I see how you may say that you are playing for an actual finishing spot in that situation, but that spot is based on 4 sections of play stacked on top of each other rather than fluid standings.

Shcool wrote:There are more than two ways to run a tournament, and any method is going to have some flaws. If you have heterogeneous pools followed by homogeneous pools, it generally works well but not perfectly. If your original pools are a little bit off, then you don't get the right teams in your top pool at the end. Also, as has been said, one or two particularly good or particularly bad matches in the morning can stick you in an afternoon pool you don't belong in, meaning that instead of playing teams at your level like is supposed to happen, you end up playing teams that are not. Just because something is better than single elimination does not mean that it is above criticism.

I realize that no method is above criticism, and I'm not one to argue just to argue. I do not see the advantages in this situation, though. If I were to start naming Georgia teams that in certain situations would beat any of the rest I would imagine I'd stop around 8 or 10 (Walton, Chattahoochee, Alpharetta, Brookwood, Central Gwinnett, plus other states' teams that come down often, James Island, Dorman A and B, and more). All of these teams, I'd imagine, would not fit in one bracket. Is there a remedy for this?

Shcool wrote:Also, as has been said, one or two particularly good or particularly bad matches in the morning can stick you in an afternoon pool you don't belong in, meaning that instead of playing teams at your level like is supposed to happen, you end up playing teams that are not.

Right, but no tournament format is going to be able to judge the inherent ability of your team; the only data we have to (and should) go off of is the matches you play at the tournament. The accuracy of your tournament is only as accurate as the match results. The final rankings of the tournament reflect how well the teams played at that tournament, so yes, if you play poorly, you will finish lower than you were "supposed to." That doesn't seem to be a condemnation of the format, though.

And in the end, tournaments should measure how well you play the game of quizbowl, in all its aspects. We shouldn't make gamesmanship a disproportionate part of the game, but there's a reason we use buzzers instead of worksheets.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or what, but I'm not talking about gamesmanship at all. I'm not sure what other quantifiable "aspects" of quizbowl there are except who answers more questions correctly (and how many they answer)-keep in mind we're talking about tournament format, not match format. What I'm saying is that if a team loses a game that it "shouldn't have" than it won't place as high as it "should have" in the tournament. The more games you play, the less effect this "aberration" has, but it still has (and should have) an effect, because it is the result of a game at that tournament. Furthermore, I don't really believe that we can tell which games a team should have won on any given day, anyway, because that supposes that we know exactly how good each team is before the tournament. And then why would we have a tournament at all?

Andrew's a Freshman wrote:
Say half of your team shows up after the first match because their car got lost (which may not happen to any other teams but ours, I can't say) and you lose this match. Now, it's later in the tournament and you're in a bracket with 4 teams that you are clearly better than. This is where the competitiveness is lost, as I see it.

Your argument seems to be that not all matches in the tournament should count, then. I disagree.

Shcool wrote:There are more than two ways to run a tournament, and any method is going to have some flaws. If you have heterogeneous pools followed by homogeneous pools, it generally works well but not perfectly. If your original pools are a little bit off, then you don't get the right teams in your top pool at the end. Also, as has been said, one or two particularly good or particularly bad matches in the morning can stick you in an afternoon pool you don't belong in, meaning that instead of playing teams at your level like is supposed to happen, you end up playing teams that are not. Just because something is better than single elimination does not mean that it is above criticism.

I realize that no method is above criticism, and I'm not one to argue just to argue. I do not see the advantages in this situation, though. If I were to start naming Georgia teams that in certain situations would beat any of the rest I would imagine I'd stop around 8 or 10 (Walton, Chattahoochee, Alpharetta, Brookwood, Central Gwinnett, plus other states' teams that come down often, James Island, Dorman A and B, and more). All of these teams, I'd imagine, would not fit in one bracket. Is there a remedy for this?

Just last weekend, UGA managed to have 8 teams go into the top playoff bracket. They split it into 2 4-team brackets, and then did round-robin and crossover. So, after the prelims, 8 teams still had a shot at placing 1st by winning the round-robin and crossover.

If you have a disappointing match in a tournament with bracketed playoffs, the worst that could happen is that you end up in a lower bracket. If you have a disappointing match in a tournament with single-elim, you could be forced to not play five playoff rounds because you were eliminated.

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:Your argument seems to be that not all matches in the tournament should count, then. I disagree.

That's how I feel about bracketed playoffs. They do not count equally since there is a ceiling above which you cannot get to after a certain point. The matches at that time should have the same bearing on your placement as those at the beginning.

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:Just last weekend, UGA managed to have 8 teams go into the top playoff bracket. They split it into 2 4-team brackets, and then did round-robin and crossover. So, after the prelims, 8 teams still had a shot at placing 1st by winning the round-robin and crossover.

I wasn't at that tournament so I can't say whether that was the correct format for what was presented, though it seems like it ran well. I would say that the bigger bracket size the better in all cases, though, as then there is a lower chance of a competitive team being locked out of the "competitive" bracket. Would you agree on that?

Earthquake wrote:If you have a disappointing match in a tournament with bracketed playoffs, the worst that could happen is that you end up in a lower bracket. If you have a disappointing match in a tournament with single-elim, you could be forced to not play five playoff rounds because you were eliminated.

Why play five playoff rounds, why not have 3 more prelim matches to determine more clearly the top teams and then have a 2 round single elimination, or 3 round elimination based on the amount and quality of teams. I doubt anyone would be disappointed about missing out on 2-3 rounds of play, especially after having so many chances to determine whether or not they deserve to be be part of them.

I agree 100% with everything that Wes said in his earlier post that started this whole discussion. I, too, feel that a rebracketing format should be the preferred method over single elimination (whenever the field is small enough to allow it) for one simple reason: it allows ALL teams to play more games. Allowing all teams, whether they are the best team or the worst, to play as many games as possible, should be the goal. Yes, there are almost always some teams who don't want to stay and play a lot of games; if those teams choose to leave early, so be it. At least the opportunity to play lots of games is open to those teams who do want to play.

Also, as Wes pointed out, all teams benefit from increased opportunities to play teams of similar ability levels. Strong teams ultimately benefit from playing close, competitive matches against other strong teams -- even if that results in a few more losses for the team in the short term. Less experienced teams get to play other less experienced teams and maybe, finally, rack up a couple of wins. All it sometimes takes is a win or two to motivate a team to study and practice hard for the next tournament. A 440-20 blowout isn't fun for teams on either end of the spectrum. Anyone who truly enjoys winning that 440-20 game more than playing a close, hard-fought game against a team of similar abilities really needs to reassess their priorities.

The first tournament that I had been to that used a rebracketing format was the Dorman Season-Ender last May and I thought it was fantastic (and said so at the time on this board.) I have been pleased to see that several local tournaments this year have also adopted this format. I hope that this will be a trend...

I was looking through the archives, came across this thread about the 2005 GATA State Championships, and noticed that there used to be a Sportmanship Trophy, All-State Team, and Coach of the Year awards. I'm interested to know how those were determined and why they were stopped.

The Sportsmanship awards were based on readers' ratings of each team and their attitude toward each other and the other team in their rooms during the day. The All-State team and the Coach of the Year awards were based on votes received from coaches. They were discontinued because getting nominations and votes and tabulating them proved to be the most difficult part of running the tournaments as many coaches just didn't bother to turn in anything. Since the readers are volunteers brought by each school, some of whom have little or no quiz bowl experience, there was a thought that the job of reader should be as streamlined and simple as possible. When the idea of discontinuing them was discussed at the board level and with general membership, there was no appreciable movement to retain them.

As with everything, however, the board is open to change in the future. I myself would like a return of sportsmanship awards.

I agree that the Sportsmanship Award should be brought back. I always thought the All-State Team was overrated. I have no opinion on the Coach of the Year award.

However, if the collecting and tabulating process was what made those awards so difficult to manage, perhaps a new method would expedite the decision-making process. Maybe GATA could send out a survey to all the Coaches after the State Championships are over that includes a list of the Coaches' names on it (at least those who took team(s) to the State Tournaments), and a place for them to write-in the name of a player(s) they felt deserved special recognition. That might make the voting process simpler and easier than collecting papers and tabulating them the day of the tournaments. Just an idea.

Wow, a fake quizbowl tournament that's directly competing with both Norcross and WOQ at Clemson. This should be a good litmus test to see where coaches' priorities lie, both ethically and quizbowl quality-wise.

I was planning on taking as many of my varsity players to WOQB in Clemson and the Norcross event as can go. If I am able to follow through on those plans, do I "pass" the ethics AND quiz bowl quality ethics litmus test?

It wouldn't be surprising if the Chip event attracts a random scattering of teams who barely play quizbowl; maybe schools like Rome or Villa Rica will show up (I know they have or have had teams of some sort). He seems to do a good job of aggressively contacting teams and getting them interested in playing his terrible version of quizbowl, but perhaps if he can get new schools to send teams they'll be able to attend "good" quizbowl tournaments in the future.

What would be really surprising is if he attracted otherwise decent teams who actually go to tournaments and choose to ignore Norcross. Why teams who are actually good at real quizbowl would ever voluntarily choose to play Chip given such a direct choice is really beyond belief.

Chris, I like the way you put that - "a random scattering" - because that is exactly what Chip will likely get from GA (and perhaps other states) at his tournament. It is even less likely that he will get any "decent" teams now that Clemson is hosting WOQ.

On to much more important things. With the close of the fall tournament season after this weekend's CATT V, I believe Centennial and Alpharetta may be the 2 best teams in GA 5A right now. Centennial went to only 3-4 tournaments this semester, from what I can remember, but they played VERY well at all of the them. (In fact, they may have even finished in the top 4 at each of them.) Alpharetta went to 4-5 tournaments, from what I can remember, and they also had stellar results. Brookwood has had good results, as have Walton, Central Gwinnett, and Chattahoochee, but not quite at the high level of consistency as Centennial and Alpharetta. With over 3 months to go before the State Championship, it will be very interesting to see how 5A ends up shaking out.

I'll concur. Chattahoochee was my first opportunity to see Centennial compete this year, and I was very impressed. They are an incredibly talented team - easily among the best we've seen this year - and it would be great to see them at more tournaments (Weekend of Quizbowl at Clemson?).

Eric Huff

National History Bee (eric AT historybee.com)
ACE Quizbowl Camps (eric AT acequizbowlcamp.com)
Former Head Coach, Dorman High School (2001-2012)

We're definitely excited about how the team is doing this season. We'e managed to win some tournaments (at least, the ones that Dorman didn't attend), and it's been quite an adventure to make it into the later rounds of Brookwood and Chattahoochee, advancing further than Alpharetta's ever gone before. That success, along with our hosting of the Alpharetta JV tournament, means that we'll be able to attend a national tournament this year. But we definitely have some room for improvement, so you can be sure we'll be studying and practicing hard second semester. And though it's frustrating to have missed playing Centennial, I'm hoping we'll get a chance to play in the spring.

This has been a great semester for Georgia quizbowl. With Central Gwinnett, Alpharetta, and Kennessaw State hosting tournaments, there were more opportunities to play. The well-established tournaments--Brookwood and Chattahoochee--both reached astounding attendance numbers and produced quality question sets. And, lest anyone call us insular, Georgia teams hosted, competed in, and did well at mirrors of two nationally-played sets, Fall Novice and the Harvard Fall Tournament, and attended tournaments in Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Michigan. Chattahoochee also wrote a packet for ACF Fall and attended the Georgia Tech mirror. A new team, Johns Creek, was welcomed to the circuit.

Looking forward, second semester looks to be even better. With the UGA and Georgia Tech teams becoming more active, hopefully they will host more quality high school and college events. Weekend of Quizbowl at Clemson will be a great event; hopefully many Georgia teams will attend either that tournament or the Prison Bowl mirror at Norcross. The signicant number of good teams will mean more exciting matches leading into the State tournament in March. And, of course, after that there's nationals, which, judging by the increase in tournament hosting, hopefully more teams will have the funding to attend.

Well said, William. I believe, as you do, that the depth of the GA circuit this year will make the Varsity State Championship very exciting indeed. In fact, this may be the deepest pool of competitive teams we have had in GA in quite a long time - certainly within the past few years.

It is also nice to see some Fulton County Schools performing so well. In the recent, and not so recent, past, the best teams in metro-ATL were from Gwinnett and Cobb County, with other schools popping up sporadically here and there. Believe it or not, but most teams in the SE hadn't even heard of Centennial and Alpharetta a few years ago - now, those teams are winning tournaments! I hope this trend continues, as it would certainly benefit all of GA, and the SE circuit, to have so many competitive teams.

The 90s saw this trend in SE quizbowl: lots of good to very good teams that competed in more than 5-6 tournaments a year, including some out-of-state and national tournaments. As a result, several nationally competitive teams, including a few National Champions, came out of that culture. In fact, many of the really good teams out there today were either nowhere to be found or not competitive at all a few years ago. Some teams that immediately come to mind (other than the 2 in GA I have already mentioned) are Hunter College, St. Anselm's, and Whitman. This is to take nothing away from those teams' successes over the past few years; it is simply to illustrate the point that many programs come and go as the best players enter and then graduate. Continued success at quizbowl is much more elusive and ephemeral.

However, it can be done. The constants in SE quizbowl over the past 15+ years are Brookwood, Dorman, and Walton (and James Island until very recently). All 4 of those teams have competed in, and won, National Championships. In the Mid-Atlantic, the constants during that same period of time have been Maggie L. Walker, State College, TJ, and Walter Johnson. There are, of course, teams in other parts of the country that have also had continued success over the past 15+ years, like DCC, duPont Manual, NKC, etc. Teams looking to build a program could certainly start by using these teams as blueprints for future success. While most of those aforementioned teams have had committed, experienced coaches over the course of their history, a few, like MLWGS and TJ, have been led by a group of committed students year after year as opposed to a single adult, or adults. Whichever way works the best at your school is how you should try to proceed; there is no "right" way to build a successful high school quizbowl program in my opinion.

It is my hope that more teams continue their recent successes for many years to come. Additionally, I want to see quizbowl continue to spread all over the country. Thus, I think it imperative that we continue to be a more inclusive group of ambassadors as we move forward into the new decade.

Not only are there more strong teams in Georgia, each is more competitive among the SE teams that have traveled down to Georgia tournaments. As well, I imagine they will all be competitive nationally if they get the chance to compete in other areas. It would be unfortunate if several of the top teams didn't compete in a national tournament this year due to a low budget or another limitation.

As many were concerned with earlier, there will be teams that miss out on the Norcross and Clemson tournaments due to the Chip Beall event. There are those that have already committed to attend it and can't withdraw their registration. It will be more concerning if there are teams with an open choice that choose that event over our own.

In other news, a preliminary announcement regarding the Norcross tournament has been sent out to teams that I was able to contact. I'd like to have a clear picture of approximately how many teams are going by mid-January so I'd appreciate some type of response by then. I except that the majority of decisions will be made around the time school gets back in session. If you didn't receive an message then I don't have your e-mail address. That can be solved with a quick e-mail to me or a post in the thread in the "Announcements" forum.

This is only my second year coaching, and I have enjoyed learning a lot about quiz bowl. A few of the regulars on this board helped me get my program off the ground last (and this) year. Hospitality has abounded. Thanks!

That is my introduction for some pretty novice questions,

Marist is considering attending the State Championship in March. Can someone give me some info about the tournie? Here are some basic questions I have,

1. How does the 2 day format work?
2. What style questions can we expect? (I have some packets from the 2002 tournament...are they largely the same?)
3. Are regionals determined in the same tournament?
4. What else should I ask about that I don't know?

Please feel free to contact me directly if you ever need information or help with anything. I know how overwhelming it can feel when you are new to quiz bowl and don't know about what tournaments to go to, etc. I am thrilled that Marist has an active team now. I have wondered for years why we never see Marist at tournaments.

First -- and most importantly -- I would definitely go to the Varsity State tournament in March. I would also recommend going to the J.V. State tournament in February, assuming that you have some younger players. There are teams at all levels at the State Championships -- from the best and most experienced teams to the least. When I was a new coach, I had a misconception that the State Championships were only for the "elite" teams in Georgia, but this is absolutely not the case.

I am going to answer your questions based on how things have worked the last few years at Varsity State. I assume that the format will be the same this year.

(1) The tournament begins on Friday around 6:00 p.m. Teams play about 4 rounds on Friday night and then 4 more rounds on Saturday morning. The top 4 teams in each division then play a semifinal and final round to determine 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place.
(2) My understanding of how the questions work is that they are purchased from NAQT and then edited to remove the "trash" (pop culture). The questions from 2002 should be largely similar in level, style and format to this year's set.
(3) Regionals are determined at the same tournament. A school must play all other schools in attendance from their same region. The school with the best record from within their region (during the preliminaries) is declared the Region Champ.

Again, if you have any additional questions, please don't hesitate to e-mail me at [email protected].

I have emailed you as well, but in case you check here first: the playoffs (at least in 4A and 5A the past few years) have featured 8 teams, not 4, in a single-elimination playoff. As for the questions: NAQT has tweaked their question "style" over the years to stay current with the times, so the questions aren't exactly the same as they were in 2002. I would say they are fairly similar though. If you could get some sets from the past 2-3 years, I would say you would have a bit better feel for how the questions will be. I could probably send you a set or two. Remember also that you can play with 5 players at a time, instead of the typical 4 at other tournaments. GATA started this 2 years ago and has been met with mostly positive responses so far.

Sorry... I didn't remember the playoffs involving 8 teams. In my memory, there was just a semifinal followed by a final (and a consolation) round. I must have mixed it up with the Gwinnett County Championships where only the top 4 teams make the playoffs (although my memory of that event may be faulty too!) Now that I think about it, though, I do remember our team playing Alpharetta last year in the quarterfinals before losing to Walton in the semifinals. Also, I took Kevin's question about the 2002 questions to be referring to the basic format and level, not the content. In this regard, the questions aren't that different from those in 2002 (incidentally, the first year my team ever attended the Varsity State tournament) but it certainly couldn't hurt to look at more recent rounds as well.

No Alpharetta, Centennial, Central Gwinnett, or Walton at Dorman this Saturday?!? What on earth is going on?!? Can GA quizbowl be salvaged? At least Central and Walton are going to Cedar Shoals on the 30th.

On a slightly related topic, which GA teams are planning (as of today) on going to Nationals this year? Which one(s)?

I stand corrected: Walton is going to Dorman after all - just got an updated field list from Mr. Huff. Still, that is 3 of the top 6-8 teams in 5A that are not going to one of the best tournaments in the SE. I am more than a little surprised.

To answer my own question from the previous post, Chattahoochee is planning on going to the HSNCT this year (with 2 teams again...hopefully.)

The main problem that Central Gwinnett has in going to "far away" tournaments like Dorman is transportation. I have an extremely difficult time finding parents who are willing to drive to events -- especially when it means driving several hours and/or staying overnight. In the past, I drove students to tournaments, but this year my school has a new administration that will no longer allow me to drive students. This is making a problem that already existed even larger. We could pay for a bus to take students to tournaments but that would involve money that we don't have.

I am not even sure how we are going to manage to get to the Varsity State tournament in March in Hinesville (a 5 hour drive necessitating an overnight stay in south Georgia.) However, we certainly aren't going to miss the State tournament so we'll have to find a way somehow!

Wow, that's surprising, Elliott. James Island will be at the tournament. Ninety-five teams is a big number for any tournament. Dorman gets this every year. That's why it's one of the best tournaments. Hinesville is closer to here, as it's only 2 1/2 hours from here.

They should have it in Macon every year. It would get everyone in a central location.

centralhs wrote:The main problem that Central Gwinnett has in going to "far away" tournaments like Dorman is transportation. I have an extremely difficult time finding parents who are willing to drive to events -- especially when it means driving several hours and/or staying overnight. In the past, I drove students to tournaments, but this year my school has a new administration that will no longer allow me to drive students. This is making a problem that already existed even larger. We could pay for a bus to take students to tournaments but that would involve money that we don't have.

I am not even sure how we are going to manage to get to the Varsity State tournament in March in Hinesville (a 5 hour drive necessitating an overnight stay in south Georgia.) However, we certainly aren't going to miss the State tournament so we'll have to find a way somehow!
Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

Hmm... Do you have any students who can drive? That sometimes helps. Also, you probably could pull off 5-hour drive in a day, although it'd be a long day.

Douglas Graebner, Walt Whitman HS 10, Uchicago 14
"... imagination acts upon man as really as does gravitation, and may kill him as certainly as a dose of prussic acid."-Sir James Frazer,The Golden Bough

Only one of my students drives and I don't think her parents want her to drive long distances on the highway. As for driving the 5 hours in one day... the Varsity State tournament is a two day event (Friday evening and Saturday.) Since the tournament is so far away, we really have no choice but to stay overnight on Friday.

centralhs wrote:Only one of my students drives and I don't think her parents want her to drive long distances on the highway. As for driving the 5 hours in one day... the Varsity State tournament is a two day event (Friday evening and Saturday.) Since the tournament is so far away, we really have no choice but to stay overnight on Friday.

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

Ah, I didn't know it was a two-day tournament. Out of curiosity, how many teams usually play it?

Douglas Graebner, Walt Whitman HS 10, Uchicago 14
"... imagination acts upon man as really as does gravitation, and may kill him as certainly as a dose of prussic acid."-Sir James Frazer,The Golden Bough